![proxima nova font imgur fwiw proxima nova font imgur fwiw](http://www.identifont.com/samples2/mark-simonson/ProximaNovaAltExCn.gif)
- Proxima nova font imgur fwiw update#
- Proxima nova font imgur fwiw code#
- Proxima nova font imgur fwiw download#
But I know, it's just so easy to talk about, hard to do. Since I'm making a wish, I would also like to have per-site overrides, for those that use something that looks like garbage if you univerally disabled sub-pixel hinting. Plenty of sites ask for ordinary installed fonts (helvetica?) that are no fun to read, but I could still bear to see fancy typefaces here and there, and of course I always want to see those blessed icons. let me say "let downloaded fonts override my fonts" next to, and independent of, "let sites choose".
![proxima nova font imgur fwiw proxima nova font imgur fwiw](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T7XX3.png)
How about E圎xceptions, could it be hacked into that? I would like to be able to say "show my specified fonts always, unless the site downloads a font, then only allow it to specify said font" i.e.
![proxima nova font imgur fwiw proxima nova font imgur fwiw](http://speed.e-homp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pension_16_02.jpg)
I don't think it's trivial but I admit I don't have any idea how non-trivial it really is. I am irritated enough by this to try to fix it myself, but when I finally went to find out the nature of the problem, I expected there to be an extension that would do it. > being able to see their PUA icons makes the sites unusable. > fonts, 15+ years of using websites has shown this to be a bad idea. > I *really* do not want to have to enable sites to be able to use their own Or in other words, even when "Allow pages to choose their own fonts" is DISabled, still allow webfonts to be used. No, the request is basically the opposite of that: use downloadable fonts (in particular, for icon fonts whether to allow them for non-PUA characters is open to debate), but apart from that, ignore fonts specified by the page's CSS, and use the user's preferred fonts instead. > "gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled" to false. > want to disable downloadable fonts, no? If that's the case you can set > Hmm, not sure this is exactly what this bug is about. > unreadable (a lot of blogs in particular have started using a particularly
![proxima nova font imgur fwiw proxima nova font imgur fwiw](https://i.imgur.com/KvXDrRoh.jpg)
> websites to use their own fonts, but then the actual content is often Unicode characters show up fine if I allow
Proxima nova font imgur fwiw update#
> Any update on getting this fixed in the next version of Firefox? It's > (In reply to craigwut from comment #16) (In reply to John Daggett (:jtd) from comment #18) Hence, like an image, they should be used as the website specifies. I think it's appropriate to think of a PUA codepoints just like an image: they are binary blobs that have no semantics, and hence not translatable into another font.
Proxima nova font imgur fwiw code#
For non-PUA codepoints this means their font, and for PUA code points, this means the webfont. I'd suggest the user really doesn't mind the downloading of webfonts when setting "use own fonts", only that page fonts rendering of them as close as possible to his/her settings. > regardless of whether they're going to be used for PUA codepoints or for
Proxima nova font imgur fwiw download#
> download any webfonts that are called for by the font-family property, Currently, unless "use own fonts" is turned off, we will > ensure that we trigger the webfont download -only- if PUA codepoints are > the case where the user has disabled "use their own fonts"), we'll need to > To do this in a reasonable way (while avoiding lots of useless downloads in > (In reply to David Baron from comment #9) Either you allow it to use the fonts that the author has specified, or you won't see the symbols the author intended. In principle, "Allow webfonts for PUA codepoints" (without making assumptions as to whether icons or some other kind of symbols are involved) would be possible - it is at least well-defined what it would mean.īut if authors are using webfonts to provide "icon glyphs" that replace arbitrary Unicode characters - which is definitely the case for some of the "icon fonts" out there - there's no way the browser can be expected to magically discern this intention. > Either way, the user should be in control of this through some kind ofĪn option like "Allow icon fonts" is basically unimplementable as phrased, because the browser has no way to know whether the glyph images in some arbitrary font are intended to be "icons" or if they're "letters". (In reply to Alexander Dietrich from comment #6)